Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) for securing a debate on the UK-Pakistan protocol on children's matters, and in particular on the case of Asma Akhtar. We are very much aware of Mrs Akhtar's circumstances and I welcome the opportunity to set out clearly the position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to that case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for so clearly setting out the difficulty and complexity of the case.
	As the hon. Gentleman told us, international parental child abduction is not a new issue, nor, unfortunately, is it uncommon. As more people live and work overseas, so there will be more families with parents from different countries. Sometimes relationships break down and decisions have to be taken over where a child will live. In some cases, parents cannot agree and one parent decides to move the child to another country without the permission of the other. In this case, there are four children, and the circumstances are pretty exceptional.
	Where parents cannot agree, and cannot reach a mediated solution, custody is a matter for the courts. However, it is a serious and distressing issue, particularly when there is an international dimension. We cannot interfere, or take sides, but the Government are committed to helping where we can. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about the matter with Mr. Justice Ryder of the family division of the High Court. It is important that the hon. Gentleman gets guidance from Mr. Justice Ryder.
	To provide a focal point for our work, in 2003 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office set up a dedicated child abduction section within the consular directorate. The section provides advice and support to parents affected by child abduction. For many years, countries have looked for ways to resolve disputes in the best interests of the children. The 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction is an international convention under which legal procedures are agreed between a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, to assist in the return of a child who has been abducted.
	The hon. Gentleman did not have time to remind us, but The Hague convention does not work for all countries. For example, there are aspects of Islamic or sharia law, as practised in some countries, that can conflict with the principles of the convention. The convention argues that the country of habitual residence should be the deciding factor in determining where custody issues should be resolved. As he reminded us, the children are British. They were taken to Pakistan on holiday and they and their mother now find themselves more or less incarcerated in the country. Sharia law does not always support the notions enshrined in The Hague convention and so in many countries it can be very difficult for parents to have their children returned to their normal place of residence.
	Pakistan is such a country. It is also the country to which most abducted British children are taken by a parent—accounting for almost a fifth of our total case records. The United Kingdom-Pakistan protocol, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, was signed in 2003 following an initiative by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who was then president of the family division of the royal courts of justice, and senior judges. The aim was to provide a mechanism for communication between judiciaries to handle better child abduction cases between our two countries.
	The judicial initiative reflected the fact that although Pakistan, a country practising Islamic sharia family law, was unlikely in the near future to sign The Hague convention of 1980 on international child abduction, our countries shared many legal principles. They shared a desire to see child abduction cases handled in the best interests of the children. The protocol is a judicial consensus and, as the hon. Gentleman said, is not legally binding. However, in legal systems that draw heavily on precedent, it was clear that further establishing the principle of habitual residence as a strong assumption in child abduction cases would be very helpful. Judicial co-operation on this level is also important in trying to foster international co-operation between judiciaries.
	The protocol aims to secure the return of abducted children to the country where they normally live, without regard to the nationality, culture or religion of the parents, so that matters of custody and access can be resolved by the courts there. The protocol, which Her Majesty's Government fully support, has made a difference. According to the most recent records, 84 cases have been handled under the protocol. Of these, a total of 49 involved actual abduction or wrongful retention of a child by a parent. Some 22 cases resulted in returns from Pakistan to the United Kingdom.
	As well as offering the advice and support provided by the child abduction section in London, our consular staff based overseas are committed to supporting British nationals. That includes giving all the support that we properly can to those who have had their children abducted overseas, or are involved in custody disputes. We provide a list of overseas lawyers who speak English, conduct welfare checks on children—provided, of course, that the other parent agrees—offer travel information, and help with finding accommodation locally. Where appropriate, we contact the courts overseas to express our interest in a case and ask about progress. In exceptional circumstances we also attend court hearings. However, we can only operate within the confines of the law and cannot interfere in foreign court proceedings, just as other countries cannot interfere in our judicial system.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about the case of Mrs. Akhtar and her four children, all of whom are in Pakistan. Our consular staff at the British high commission in Islamabad became aware of the case when Mrs. Akhtar's family in the UK contacted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Consular staff have been in regular, frequent contact with Mrs. Akhtar since 1 May 2007 to offer and provide advice and assistance. That has included accompanying Mrs. Akhtar during a court hearing. Consular officials in London have also been in contact with Mrs. Akhtar's family in the United Kingdom.
	Mrs. Akhtar has asked us to issue new passports for her children, because her husband has effectively taken the passports away, and refuses to give them back to the children. We have not issued new passports because Mrs. Akhtar has started court proceedings in Pakistan under the protocol, seeking the return of the children to the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the protocol, we must await the outcome of the proceedings before issuing passports. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman told us, a lot of time has passed. The poor woman finds herself in dire straits, with her four children in Pakistan. It is important that decisions on travel are made by the appropriate courts of law and that we do not issue passports before a decision is taken; that is the normal situation. To do so could be seen as pre-empting court decisions, or assisting one parent to move the children before the courts have reached a decision on travel. Furthermore, a court order forbids the removal of the children from the jurisdiction of Pakistan without permission from the Pakistani court.
	We appreciate the family's frustration about the lack of progress in the case; the hon. Gentleman told us very clearly about that. I stress again that the British Government cannot interfere in the judicial systems of other countries, but I am not sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking us to do; I think that he is asking us to do something rather different. We can and will express our concerns to the Pakistani judiciary at the highest levels at the lack of progress in the resolution of such cases, making reference to the undertaking signed by the judiciary in 2003.
	The British high commissioner in Islamabad is aware of the issues, and this week spoke to the protocol liaison judge, Justice Khokhar, a member of the Supreme Court. The high commissioner did not discuss individual cases, but expressed our concern that cases in Pakistan are not being resolved quickly in the best interests of the children. Justice Khokar promised to look into the matter with the district courts, and was concerned that cases were not being handled expeditiously.
	The protocol works in many cases, and we would much prefer to have it place than not, but there are cases where the protocol has not immediately been seen to help, and the case in question is just such a case. We have raised our concerns, but it remains a matter for the courts in Pakistan to decide. We hope that the conference that we plan to hold in Pakistan next year, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will be a real opportunity to examine the functioning of the protocol and to look for practical improvements, but that is months away, and the hon. Gentleman clearly described the dilemma that faces Mrs. Akhtar and her family, who are in the UK, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
	We have discussed whether giving replacement passports or adequate travel documents for the children to Mrs. Akhtar would help in resolving the case more quickly. I understand that there have been discussions with the Pakistani deputy high commissioner and the hon. Gentleman. The deputy high commissioner confirmed that he had passed on to the hon. Gentleman advice that he had received from Mrs. Akhtar's lawyer, and that if the passports were handed on, it would not jeopardise the case and might even help it.
	The family court in Rawalpindi has awarded temporary custody of the children to Mrs. Akhtar. It stipulated that the children must not be taken out of the country without the permission of the court. We will be happy to give a letter to the mother, Mrs. Akhtar, saying that once the court gives permission for the children to leave Pakistan, we will issue the passports immediately.
	However, I know that the hon. Gentleman feels that there is another way of dealing with the matter. As we heard, he offered to travel to Pakistan if he believed that that would help and after he had discussed the matter with the various authorities, to try to move this distressing case forward. I want to ensure that he will have access to the appropriate officials so that the implications of his plan can be examined properly. I know that he feels that the welfare of Asma and her children count most. We share that view deeply. We will attempt to help the hon. Gentleman in whatever way we can. I am not giving him an undertaking that his plan can be agreed by the Foreign Office, but we will look at it closely and sympathetically.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock.
	Correction
	 Official Report, 10 December 2007: In column 132, Division No. 25, insert, delete "Hill. rh Keith" in the Ayes.